Court Allows Depreciation on Machinery, Business Travel Expenses, and Commission Payments

The court upheld the appellant's claim for depreciation on new units, emphasizing that machinery need not be actively used to qualify for depreciation once production had commenced. Foreign traveling expenses for business promotion were allowed as genuine, with verified names of individuals presented. The disallowed commission payment was deemed legitimate as payments were made to regular taxpayers, qualifying as a valid business expense. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law raised for consideration.

---

---

Issues:

1. Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee for new units established.
2. Disallowance of foreign travelling expenses.
3. Disallowance of payment of commission.

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing activities, set up three new units during the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation claimed on the grounds that the plants were not fully installed, not put to use, and not ready for production. However, the Tribunal found evidence that the poly chips plant at Nasik was operational and in production during the relevant year, supported by excise records and raw material consumption. Citing precedents, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim, emphasizing that the machinery need not be actively used to qualify for depreciation. The court concurred, stating that once production had commenced, the assessee was entitled to depreciation, dismissing the appeal.

2. Disallowance of Foreign Travelling Expenses:
The Assessing Officer disallowed foreign traveling expenses incurred for 34 persons due to missing names in the tax audit report, casting doubt on the expenditure's genuineness. However, the Tribunal found that the names were presented to the first appellate authority, verified as dealers and distributors of the assessee. The trip was deemed a business promotion activity, justifying the expense. As this was a factual finding without perversity, the court held no substantial question of law arose, upholding the allowance of the expenses.

3. Disallowance of Payment of Commission:
The Tribunal examined the disallowed commission payment of &8377; 77,74,507 and found that the payments were made to regular income tax assessees. As the genuineness of the payments was unquestioned and the commission agents were legitimate taxpayers, the court ruled that the expenditure qualified as a legitimate business expense. The increase in expenditure compared to the previous year did not warrant disallowance. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating no substantial question of law was raised for consideration.

---